Concerning Hobbits and Pocket-Handkerchiefs

Friday, December 14th, 2012
at
1:28 pm

When Bilbo leaves his home in the Shire and doesn’t immediately mourn the fact that he forgot his pocket-handkerchief, I was concerned that the new rendition of Tolkien’s simple, yet masterful story, “The Hobbit”, would be unfaithful to the original.

It may not mean much to you, but it means a great deal to Bilbo (Martin Freeman) to forget his snot rag, and it represents the core theme of the story. Whether you are driven out of your home by a dragon, or murderous orcs, or a demanding wizard, or political post-war boundaries, or because you don’t want to miss the adventure of a lifetime, the handkerchief is a symbol for the comforts of home, and the peace and tranquility we find there. To reclaim home—and not a small amount of gold—is the very reason this cadre of dwarves is heading off to the Lonely Mountain.

Not too many minutes later, while riding his pony, the hobbit sneezes, and then, the lost handkerchief is missed. Like many of the changes to the now legendary story, this new version takes liberties with the plot and adds entire tangential stories to bring to the screen characters that were only given a mere mention in another book. But, in the end, the script always comes back to the core elements, comes back home.

It’s an easy task to criticize this film—its need to be bigger than what the original story ever was, the ego of the filmmakers to do more and be cooler—easy targets. (Indeed, there was a moment when I could empathize with an imagined overworked digital artist creating even bigger blisters on the swollen jowls of the Goblin King.) There are more battles (and lots more orcs), more backstory, and not enough singing for me in this new film.

But there are wonderful things only a film can do, and one is giving actors a chance to bring to life characters full of strength, weakness, misgivings, pride, beauty, charm, secrets, trust, heroism, and utter hopelessness.

The “Riddles in the Dark” passage at the first meeting of Bilbo and Gollum is masterful. I didn’t think it could be any better than my imagination and Tolkien’s writing, but it was. The Arkenstone came to life as well, in a way that made me feel the Dwarven King’s insane desire for it. And the sneak peeks into Smaug (the dragon, or, as one dwarf put it, “an incinerator with teeth”), are chilling. Like a diva waiting for her big entrance aria in the second act, this first part of the story gives us the same feeling hearing stories of the dragon must have given Bilbo.

The best way to look at this new re-imagining of the hobbit’s tale, is to think about all the stories we keep telling ourselves in narration, song, plays, and poetry. Pushkin’s beloved tale, “Eugene Onegin” has become an opera, and a film. Shakespeare retold the histories of kings and wars based on classical models. Mozart retold French plays in Italian opera. Tolkien himself drew on “Beowulf”, “Peter Pan”, and so many others to create his works. Did they embellish? Did they rewrite? Of course—they had to. A different medium requires different structure.

And if 2012’s version of the tale of a rabbit-like creature finding his own courage means blown up stories, or ultra-realistic Warg fangs, or a kind of filmic reminder of LOTR—things I would have done without for more deep-throated Dwarven melodies—then sit back and enjoy it. (And don’t let the 2k vs 5k technological babble keep you away; it’s a non-issue for enjoying the story in 2D.)

Ultimately, the filmmakers have their hearts in the right place, and we do get valuable screen time with the moral choices facing the important issues in the book that we still grapple with today. Just expect a lot of goblin-bashing along the way.

– – – – – – – –

“The Hobbit” opens at Midnight, Thursday, December 13.

This entry was posted
on Friday, December 14th, 2012 at 1:28 pm and is filed under Film, Film Reviews, Screenplay.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.

2 Responses to “Concerning Hobbits and Pocket-Handkerchiefs”

For myself, the handkerchief was actually one in a long string of blunders, an unrealistic portrayal of something the movie’s writers/directors didn’t appear to understand. In the book, the handkerchief, along with his hat and, perhaps most importantly, money, are referenced as things he’s left behind to illustrate not only the hardships of being on the road but also the difference between Bilbo’s life of precise routine in contrast to the spontaneous lifestyle of adventuring Dwarfs. In the animated film, Bilbo ponders, almost wisely, on its absence, “No hat, no stick, no pipe. not even a pocket handkerchief. How can one survive?”

In this latest film, how does our significantly dumbed down Bilbo illustrate these ideas? “Oh no, we have to go back. I forgot my handkerchief.” To recognize that it’s been forgotten, alongside other, more important tools, as in the book, makes sense. To lament its absence, alongside other creature comforts, as in the animated film, makes sense. To insist that the entire group reverse direction because he forgot a kerchief and a kerchief alone? Ridiculous to the point of silly. To me, this illustrates a running theme in these films, that the people making them didn’t put any real effort into considering what point anything they filmed had in the story.